This is not about anything but the question at hand. If Polygamy came up on the Ballot. [Not marrying kids or any of that Compound-type stuff] Three, Four, etc consenting adults deciding they want to be considered 'married'. Would you vote FOR or AGAINST it? If you would like too .. . please give some reasons why. Rocket River
The way you word it kind of makes it a hard question to answer if you're someone who is against the government recognizing or having anything to do with marriage at all.
This has come up time and again. Polygamy is not about consenting adults in a shared relationship. It's about older, richer, more powerful men keeping many younger, weaker, dependent women or girls. Show me 2 strong, professional women in a polygamy relationship with a man their age or show me a polygamy with one woman and 2 men, all equal in status, education ...
That happens in non-polygamist relationships too. Sorry, but if an older, richer, powerful man has many younger, weaker, wives who are dependent on him, how exactly can you show they are without consent? Lots of relationships revolve around dependency, but is not a sufficient condition to show that someone is being denied free will.
If the actuaries, lawyers, IRS and bureaucrats can create a good framework for doling out issuing benefits, entitlements and power of attorney on the basis of spousal priority; if we can get social workers and child/family therapists on board, and if we can get gays marriable first, then I vote sure. I think it'd be kind of cool, but admittedly set a bad/stupid precedent, if we had another constitutional convention to iron out humans rights and fiscal/budgeting issues that weren't around in the 1770s.
My theory is that the only ones voting for this have never been married. If you're married, you know how exhausting it can be if you're attempting to do it right. Throw in some kids and I'm asleep in seconds of my head hitting the pillow. I can't imagine having the emotional energy to deal with more than one wife of similar standing and intelligence to Mrs. rimrocker (not to mention I can't imagine finding another one). I can't imagine having the physical energy to hang the right way with the proportionate number of kids. Lastly, I can't imagine Mrs. rimrocker being OK with it and that's just fine with me.
Thanks. . . I forgot about that one. . . Rocket River close this one then. though Donny made some interesting commentary about the power issues in most relationships!
Outside religion, if more than one woman want to live w/ a man, or vice versa, is a legal recognition so important? It seems the hard part has been taken care of already. Now, on a serious note, unlike gay marriage (largely), polygamy still carries social stigma. Would a guy w/ multiple wives want his boss to know that? Finally, hell no. We are not Pakistan.
That's the problem with the way this thread was set up. I don't think many people are sitting around saying "YEAH! I want 7 wives! One for each day of the week! WOOT!" They're just saying that they don't feel like they should be able to dictate to other people how to live or pursue their own happiness within the confines of their own life. Same with drugs, etc, or any other lifestyle choice.
Kinda hilarious how the dude that pulls epic tail at the club every week is a social stud. Meanwhile the guy who would choose to marry multiple women is the outcast/weirdo. I think marrying multiple partners is socially stigmatized because of the fact that 1) against the law and 2) the only people who (outwardly/predominantly) practice it are cults who abuse the hell out of women from birth to be subservient and never question them or leave the "nest".
As long as nobody is being forced or is underage, you can set up your homelife however you want. I do believe that government should restrict marriage to two people, and that it should also include gay and lesbian couples. Government benefits to multiple partners quickly becomes a legal mess. How do you handle divorce and custody of a woman trying to leave a 5 person plural marriage? Could 8 men and 8 women join in a plural marriage and receive a commnual benefit from the government? I could see groups of people abusing that institution for tax benefits. But if 2 women want to live with the same man and call it marriage among themselves and in their church, have at. If they want to have children and raise them to call each woman "Mom" and have a single father, that's their right.
As long as there is no shady **** going on, I really don't care. If 2 or 3 woman are willing to spend lives with the same man, so be it.
i like this discussion because it's a fair question. i would like to think that if consenting adults chose this path, then who are we to deny them? shouldn't our species be allowed to live, love, and dedicate themselves to whomever they choose? i realize how many marriages suck with a 1 woman to 1 man ratio (divorce rates are astonishing!). and i wonder maybe if polygamy could work for some people... ?? hmmm... assuming all parties are 'consenting' the issue then becomes: how does it affect children who are born into these situations? what other impact could this type of relationship have? EDIT: oh and i would vote FOR.
There is no purpose. The more interesting question is whether incestuous marriages should be legal. (I'm not sure if they are legal or not in most states)
Investment Banking, International Diplomacy, Political Alliances and Succession, Estate and Probate, "Safety School" for Hookers and Nuns, Paternity Testing and Legal Rape.
